Ideology And Religion

[jkwilliams]

Yes, he is quite wrong and this is actually a sign to me that the Catholic church is about to take a turn for the worse.  The LDS Church teaches us, and we have been so reminded in recent Conferences, that there are moral absolutes and eternal principles, in other words, rigid doctrine.  The problem that exists within the Catholic and the LDS Church is that there are people who don't believe some of these principles and, not wanting to admit they are in opposition, fall to branding others as rigid, inflexible, closed minded, legalistic, etc. and try to both silence those who speak out in defense of them or agitate to change the doctrine; the OW group for example.

What are the moral absolutes in Mormonism? I can only think of obedience as a moral absolute.

[BCSpace]

What are the moral absolutes in Mormonism? I can only think of obedience as a moral absolute.

 

Tough to think of any LDS doctrine that isn't related to a moral absolute somehow.  Gender differences is certainly one we hear of often these days.  The importance of marriage and chastity (law of). Along with that, the Proclamation on the Family. The body being a temple.  True charity ala the Law of Consecration, the fundamental principle of which according to official LDS doctrine is private property and the free use of it.  The Plan of Salvation which is neutral and requires the enticements of good and evil.  More mundane things like the earth having enough resources and to spare. Etc.

[jkwilliams]

Tough to think of any LDS doctrine that isn't related to a moral absolute somehow.  Gender differences is certainly one we hear of often these days.  The importance of marriage and chastity (law of). Along with that, the Proclamation on the Family. The body being a temple.  True charity ala the Law of Consecration, the fundamental principle of which according to official LDS doctrine is private property and the free use of it.  The Plan of Salvation which is neutral and requires the enticements of good and evil.  More mundane things like the earth having enough resources and to spare. Etc.

That said, Joseph Smith said that whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is. So, if God commands infidelity, it would, of necessity, be right. If God commands you to kill, that's also right. And so on. Gender differences don't seem to be "moral" principles, but again, if God commanded gender roles to change, we would be wrong to refuse.

[BCSpace]

That said, Joseph Smith said that whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is. So, if God commands infidelity, it would, of necessity, be right. If God commands you to kill, that's also right. And so on. Gender differences don't seem to be "moral" principles, but again, if God commanded gender roles to change, we would be wrong to refuse.

 

Then one might have to wait for a change.  But seeing as how these are all eternal principles, I think one would have to wait long.  Consider plural marriage.  That doctrine has never changed.  We are simply in a not authorized phase (Jacob 2:30).  Same with the Priesthood ban.  Etc.  People see change where there isn't any and it drives false hopes and encourages disobedience and an unwillingness to endure to the end.

Edited October 22, 2013 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

Tough to think of any LDS doctrine that isn't related to a moral absolute somehow.  Gender differences is certainly one we hear of often these days.  The importance of marriage and chastity (law of). Along with that, the Proclamation on the Family. The body being a temple.  True charity ala the Law of Consecration, the fundamental principle of which according to official LDS doctrine is private property and the free use of it.  The Plan of Salvation which is neutral and requires the enticements of good and evil.  More mundane things like the earth having enough resources and to spare. Etc.

Gender differences a moral absolute? Do you mean gender roles? If so you believe gender stereotyping is God's mandate?

[BCSpace]

Gender differences a moral absolute? Do you mean gender roles? If so you believe gender stereotyping is God's mandate?

 

 

What, in your opinion, is the doctrine on gender?

[Stone holm]

What, in your opinion, is the doctrine on gender?

Doctrine? Not much, lots of teachings that point towards gender stereotyping of roles. My hunch is you will see movement away from that in the coming years as my generation gives way to the next. It is a non sustainable cultural position. Of course we will still acknowledge differences, but they will be more subtle than today.

[BCSpace]

Doctrine? Not much, lots of teachings that point towards gender stereotyping of roles. My hunch is you will see movement away from that in the coming years as my generation gives way to the next. It is a non sustainable cultural position. Of course we will still acknowledge differences, but they will be more subtle than today.

 

Doubt it.  One of the eternal principles is that gender is established in the pre-mortal life.  I predict, because the conference of the priesthood on males only will not change, you won't see much change at all in gender roles.  In fact, I'll be willing to bet that any change that may have taken place already has.

[Stone holm]

Doubt it.  One of the eternal principles is that gender is established in the pre-mortal life.  I predict, because the conference of the priesthood on males only will not change, you won't see much change at all in gender roles.  In fact, I'll be willing to bet that any change that may have taken place already has.

You are correct about gender being a premortal trait, hopefully you are wrong on the rest as would hate to see the Church become marginalized as being stuck in the 1950's, but you could be right. Our position on SSM will not change but the gender stereotyping I believe will fade away.

[pmccombs1]

Adultery used to be illegal in some States, where does legislation fit into your automata argument?

 

The epistemic model is top-down and authoritarian. Knowers shape the world in their own image, and it is a world of laws. Legislated laws must be enforced, of course, so there is an element of coercion in this model. In my opinion, THAT is the rigidity the pope is talking about. On the other hand, the ontological model is from the bottom up. Participators practice civic virtue and create a new world within their own family or community. For them, there is not much point in having books full of laws. So, there is the lack of rigidity because the need for enforcement and coercion is not there. 

 

It isn't that there is some question about morality or the nature of right and wrong. These two models don't necessarily disagree on what is good and what is not. I don't think that is what is meant when the pope says, "rigid." The man isn't claiming that some principles are now less true or absolute than they were before, rather he is saying something about devotion to ideals. He is talking about means. Ideals are vehicles that are meant to convey something of substance. What is it that the ideals are supposed to convey? It's difficult to discern those truths when the ideals themselves are elevated into the place of the the truths they are subservient to. The people who most need those ideals are put off by the zealous insistence upon them.

 

For instance, think about the Catholic teaching against the use of contraceptives. It is ideal that the faithful should observe this. The teaching is an ideal. But what is the truth that this ideal is supposed to convey? Sometimes it gets lost in the rigidity of the ideal, in the cacophony of those voices who insist on legislating the ideal for everyone, even for those who have not received the substance of it. We must now all be treated as children.

 

Knowers are devoted to outward forms and symbols (knowledge), participators are devoted to the substance of things. Pope Francis is trying to put the Church right side up. There is idolatry in the zealous service of ideals--those ideals are just images, and there comes a point when devotion to them becomes unjust. He wants participators who are open to receiving the substance that ideals are supposed to convey, so he sees a church that invites rather than demands. It is a time of invitation.

[strappinglad]

Well ,now I have a new ' standard ' to live up to. Thanks a lot pmc !

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah I tend to think of ideology in political terms as well, do you believe he was referring to political ideology?

 

Not directly. More along the lines where political ideology misinforms the religion.

[BCSpace]

Yeah I tend to think of ideology in political terms as well, do you believe he was referring to political ideology?

 

Not directly. More along the lines where political ideology misinforms the religion.

 

Yet the currently published official doctrine of the Church is:

 

“To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1974, pp. 45–46; or Ensign, Nov. 1974, pp. 33–35.

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-76-the-vision-of-the-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng

Edited October 22, 2013 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

Sometime ago I came to the conclusion that a person should do or not do something because they knew it was the right thing to do or not to do, not because of either earthly or heavenly rewards. I tend to have this possibly unwarranted belief that humans are in fact naturally good, it is only when there individual humanness gets replaced by something else that things go awry. So you have a paradox that in order to get major things to happen you need organization in groups, but as soon as you do that you start doing that you start replacing their humanness with something else. "Its nothing personal, it's just business."

[BCSpace]

I tend to have this possibly unwarranted belief that humans are in fact naturally good, it is only when there individual humanness gets replaced by something else that things go awry. So you have a paradox that in order to get major things to happen you need organization in groups, but as soon as you do that you start doing that you start replacing their humanness with something else. "Its nothing personal, it's just business."

 

What often happens is that the natural goodness of humanity gets twisted into a false form of charity; one that removes agency and dictatorially forces us, like Satan's plan, to be "righteous". Hence the officially published LDS doctrine in the area of the Law of Consecration:

 

“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness

....

 

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

Sometime ago I came to the conclusion that a person should do or not do something because they knew it was the right thing to do or not to do, not because of either earthly or heavenly rewards. I tend to have this possibly unwarranted belief that humans are in fact naturally good, it is only when there individual humanness gets replaced by something else that things go awry. So you have a paradox that in order to get major things to happen you need organization in groups, but as soon as you do that you start doing that you start replacing their humanness with something else. "Its nothing personal, it's just business."

I so agree. Sometimes we need to be careful, as in one of the talks at the RS Women's conference. One of the speakers told a story of someone's grandson that was doing something lovingly, I think at a funeral and the grandmother commented to him that he was keeping his baptismal covenants by doing what he did, how about he was a sweet boy or something like that? Not doing something to keep a promise but just doing because he is merely "being" naturally sweet.

[Stone holm]

Yet the currently published official doctrine of the Church is:

That's nice, and it's also the type of thinking which causes people to substitute litmus tests for careful consideration of impact of policy upon living breathing people and slavish following of ideology rather than true Christian charity and the turning of Christ's Gospel upon its head.

[thesometimesaint]

Then one might have to wait for a change.  But seeing as how these are all eternal principles, I think one would have to wait long.  Consider plural marriage.  That doctrine has never changed.  We are simply in a not authorized phase (Jacob 2:30).  Same with the Priesthood ban.  Etc.  People see change where there isn't any and it drives false hopes and encourages disobedience and an unwillingness to endure to the end.

Abraham 3:25

25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.

That is LDS doctrine. IE; We do have "Thou shalt not Kill" in the KJV of the Bible, and a ffew verses later "Thou shalt utterly destroy".

 

Gender is a central tenent of our religion. Gender roles are not. Do you really think God and his wife(wives) argue over whose going to clean the dishes?

[Stone holm]

Abraham 3:25

25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.

That is LDS doctrine. IE; We do have "Thou shalt not Kill" in the KJV of the Bible, and a ffew verses later "Thou shalt utterly destroy".

 

Gender is a central tenent of our religion. Gender roles are not. Do you really think God and his wife(wives) argue over whose going to clean the dishes?

 

Modern gender stereotyping of roles is not historically sustainable either, the women, especially in polygamist families frequently ran the farms and family businesses while men were away on missions.  You really don't have the stereotyping really come into play until fairly late as they quit sending the men on missions, and the family businesses and farms give way to other types.  Of course the women from poor families had always worked outside the home.  There was a prolonged period when middle class women were only sanctioned to be teachers or nurses.  That is gone now and it is why the continued push for Cleaver type middle class family ideal of the 1950's just is no longer sustainable and will fade away in the ensuing generations.

[BCSpace]

Gender is a central tenent of our religion. Gender roles are not.

 

The fact that women are not ordained to the Priesthood shows otherwise.  The Proclamation on the Family also.

Edited October 24, 2013 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

The fact that women are not ordained to the Priesthood shows otherwise.  The Proclamation on the Family also.

Oh I don't think there is any question, but what we are currently stereotyping, don't think anyone would disagree with you there.

[thesometimesaint]

The fact that women are not ordained to the Priesthood shows otherwise.  The Proclamation on the Family also.

D&C 121:41

41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

That is the doctrine of the Church.

 

Also consider that God is no respector of persons regardless of sex. That Mrs.God has every bit of authority that her husband does.

 

I eagerly await the General Conference where The Proclamation on the Family is added to our Scriptures. Maybe next year.

[Paloma]

So is Pope Francis right or wrong in his comment about ideology?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/21/pope-francis-describes-ideological-christians-as-a-serious-illness-within-the-church/

I agree with Pope Francis, and really appreciate what I've seen of his heart and understanding of the Christian faith.

To me, the Christian faith far transcends Catholicism and Protestantism and any other isms ... and distils into trusting and following the person of Jesus.

In this thread Rory wonders why some non-Catholics like this Pope so much. As a Protestant Christian, I fall within that description. But I think I would like this Pope no matter what stream of Christianity I found myself in. And liking this Pope certainly in no way either enhances or diminishes my respect for the Catholic Church (which is already pretty huge!)

I like this Pope because of his commitment to and embodiment of simplicity, humility, compassion and the love of Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Gender differences a moral absolute? Do you mean gender roles? If so you believe gender stereotyping is God's mandate?

I reject your premises.

Do you deny that there are differences between a man and a woman? That there are certain roles that women will always carry out? IE they are the ones to have a baby inside them?

[Stone holm]

I reject your premises.

Do you deny that there are differences between a man and a woman? That there are certain roles that women will always carry out? IE they are the ones to have a baby inside them?

 

Yes there are differences, so do you say that the fact that women can conceive and birth children defines their role in life?  Strange we do not seem to define men's roles by the fact that they can impregnate women.  What kind of bizarre world would it be if the roles of the world were defined simply by who gets pregnant and who impregnates?